E2-3000M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 outperforms E2-3000M by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2965 | 2986 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD E-Series |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 1.13 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 20 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | P (478) | FS1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | SSE4.1/2, 3DNow, Radeon HD 6380G |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6380G |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.43 | 0.42 |
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 20 December 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 2.4% higher aggregate performance score.
E2-3000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3000M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
